get_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes that auto-mode modules are probed and refresh triggers re-probing, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it mention any side effects or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences in two concise paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 boolean parameter, no required params, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: what it reports, module modes, statuses, and how to trigger refresh. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, 'refresh', is a boolean with default false. The description adds clear semantic value: 'Pass refresh=True to re-probe.' This fully explains its effect, going beyond the schema's type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports which HCM modules are live on the pod, specifying per-module mode and status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_resource or list_resources, which are generic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the main purpose (reporting live modules) and the refresh parameter for re-probing. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of HCM module status is clear enough for appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.